November 2019 Elections

We just elected a new City Council! Congratulations to our new and returning City Council members!

As part of our endorsement process, we sent out a series of questions to each of the candidates in the general election.

We are looking forward to working with the city council to take these great ideas and implement them into policy to put Seattle on track to meet its climate goals.

Do you think the Seattle City Government should contribute to countering global warming? Please explain.

The Seattle City Council recently passed a resolution calling for a Green New Deal for Seattle to eliminate our city’s carbon emissions by 2030. Do you support this resolution? If so, what revenue streams would you propose to advocate for in order to pay for it?

With 1.8 million people projected to move to the Puget Sound region by 2050 (https://www.psrc.org) what proposals do you have for reducing our emissions as our city and region grow dramatically in population?

Creating an environmentally sustainable city will require that we do not create global warming pollution from our day to day activities. Some of the changes needed may not be immediately popular; how do you expect to address resistance to change in the way we live to address climate change?

Kshama Sawant

Do you think the Seattle City Government should contribute to countering global warming?

Yes; especially with Trump in the White House advancing the interests of the fossil fuel industry, rolling back environmental protections, and appointing climate deniers to cabinet positions, cities like Seattle ​must lead in the fight for climate justice. While clearly urgent action is needed on a national and international basis, cities and states can and should play a key role in building the movement – similar to how Seattle led the way on $15/hour minimum wage in 2014, which has since spread across the country. What we do in Seattle can have an impact far beyond our city limits.

I’m proud to have supported the City Council resolution for a Green New Deal. I also proposed many key amendments that were incorporated into that resolution, to use the public resources of the city to directly increase the green infrastructure in Seattle. The amendments from my Council Office make clear that we need public transit to be free for all to use, majorly encouraging ridership, and we need to expand Seattle City Light by building wind farms and solar panels, so City Light can export clean energy throughout Washington to replace the Natural Gas generated power of Puget Sound Energy and other fossil fuel companies. The amendments also advocate for rent control and expanding publicly funded affordable social housing, which is necessary to make Seattle zero carbon by 2030. Bold measures like this would be an inspiration to climate justice movements around the country.

It is important to remember that the movement for a Green New Deal was not automatic. It is being discussed across the country because socialists and other activists in NYC elected Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Congress, in the place of an establishment Democrat, and she has used her elected position to give the Sunrise movement and other climate activists a voice in Washington. The green new deal was only forced onto the national agenda by grassroots organizing, direct actions led by young people, environmental activists and social justice organizations. ​It’s not surprising that Puget Sound Energy has now put $30,000 into the Chamber of Commerce-sponsored CASE PAC to try and defeat progressive City Council candidates like myself who are fighting for a Green New Deal.

My Office has also stood with Fridays for the Future movement led by Seattle public school students.

Alex Pedersen

Do you think the Seattle City Government should contribute to countering global warming?

Yes.

When I knocked on the doors of voters on every block
in Seattle City Council’s District 4, they told
me they want more accountability from their city government, and I continue to
emphasize accountability in my campaign. While voters are typically referring
to the need for a City Council that is more responsive to residents and gets
better results on the other crisis of homelessness, I believe we also need more
accountability to address climate change crisis for the survival of our planet
and future generations.

As you all know, the climate crisis is the world-wide,
existential threat of our time and city governments must do their part,
especially in the absence of leadership from the White House and U.S. Senate.
While most District
4 voters recognize that climate change is a global
problem that a single city government or Councilmember cannot solve alone,
Seattle and our region are in a unique position to take a leading role in key
areas based on the concern of its people, the innovation of its companies, and
the availability of clean energy.

In conferring with climate scientists, I believe there are
two key issues: reducing carbon emissions to prevent warming and increasing
resiliency to adapt. City government can contribute to both. I have put
together and 18-point climate accountability plan. (Please see answer to
question #3.)

Dan Strauss

Do you think the Seattle City Government should contribute to countering global warming?

Yes. Seattle needs to lead the way on countering global warming and reducing carbon emissions, and those efforts have to start with the City itself. We need to incorporate the goals of our climate initiative into the City’s business practices – fully electrifying our automotive fleet, bringing all city buildings up to the highest energy efficiency standards, and powering City infrastructure through 100% renewable energy. We need set an example for others to follow.

This is also one of the reasons I’m so passionate about public transit – vehicles account for over half of the city’s carbon emissions. The sooner we have a citywide network of connected bike lanes and bus lanes with reliable transit times, the more people will opt out of having a car.

Andrew Lewis

Do you think the Seattle City Government should contribute to countering global warming?

Yes, the climate crisis is not some foreign problem to be solved by another community. It is the biggest existential crisis we face as a civilization, and every city needs to do its part. Especially as one of the few major American cities lacking a comprehensive grade- separated transit system, there is a lot we can do to mitigate our impact on global climate change.

Kshama Sawant

The Seattle City Council recently passed a resolution calling for a Green New Deal for Seattle to eliminate our city’s carbon emissions by 2030. Do you support this resolution? If so, what revenue streams would you propose to advocate for in order to pay for it?

As mentioned above, I support the Green New Deal, and the Seattle City Council resolution reflecting that support. I proposed and incorporated into the resolution an amendment making it clear that we needed progressive revenue sources to pay for a massive expansion in public green infrastructure. Because Washington State has the most regressive tax system in the country, funding is the biggest barrier to creating the public green infrastructure needed to eliminate carbon emissions. We must tax big business and the super rich to generate sufficient resources for the massive expansions of public transit, affordable housing, and green power that we need. Poor and working class people cannot afford more taxes, and simply do not have the money to pay for public works at the scale that our climate needs.

Alex Pedersen

The Seattle City Council recently passed a resolution calling for a Green New Deal for Seattle to eliminate our city’s carbon emissions by 2030. Do you support this resolution? If so, what revenue streams would you propose to advocate for in order to pay for it?

I support the goals of the nationalDemocratic Party’s Green New Deal (made
famous by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez “AOC”). My concerns with
the expansive spinoff from the
City Council is that it lacks focus, there was no meaningful engagement
with the general public or impacted stakeholders, and it’s not clear how dozens
of the City Council’s proposals would be funded. I’d rather focus support on
the national Green New Deal while focusing our City Hall on
expanding our city’s existing Climate Action Plan and making more
progress on the important basics of city government, including expanding transit
service, leveraging our local clean energy sources, and increasing climate
resiliency. This includes working hard now to defeat Tim Eyman’s horrible
Initiative 976 which would cripple our vital transit system.

I look forward to working with our Mayor, future City Council
colleagues, and regional and state environmental agencies to address climate
change in an expeditious and effective way that achieves actual results as we
tackle other pressing challenges such as homelessness and public safety.

With an aim to be practical so we can achieve results, I have an
18-point accountability plan that I hope City Hall colleagues will consider as
we attempt to focus on what we can achieve and as we await stronger leadership
on climate change in the White House and U.S. Senate. (Please see answer to
question #3.)

Dan Strauss

The Seattle City Council recently passed a resolution calling for a Green New Deal for Seattle to eliminate our city’s carbon emissions by 2030. Do you support this resolution? If so, what revenue streams would you propose to advocate for in order to pay for it?

I fully support the tenets of the Green New Deal and in office, I will work hard every day to make Seattle more sustainable. Climate change is the defining issue of my generation – if we don’t put curbing our carbon emissions and building a carbon-neutral city at the center of our policymaking, nothing else will matter.

Seattle has a history of not following through on climate and environment plans. I will take action immediately to reduce carbon emissions, from electrifying the city to ensuring all new construction is held to the highest energy efficiency standards to pushing for greatly expanded and improved public transit.

For revenue, I will advocate for charging private companies a fee to use our bus- only lanes. I am also open to exploring a local carbon tax and a congestion tax, provided it is adjusted to account for equity concerns – we shouldn’t punish folks who are struggling to get by and work in the city or have to drive through the city because they can’t afford to live here.

Andrew Lewis

The Seattle City Council recently passed a resolution calling for a Green New Deal for Seattle to eliminate our city’s carbon emissions by 2030. Do you support this resolution? If so, what revenue streams would you propose to advocate for in order to pay for it?

I do support a Green New Deal, and look forward to parsing out the details of reaching the 2030 goal. Two of the big lifts we can do to get there is to expand the use of cross laminated timber (CLT) and increase public transportation options.

First, on CLT, we need to pass new legislation in-keeping with state guidelines allowing us to build up to 18 stories with CLT without a required concrete base. Current guidelines only allow up to 8 stories, and the first two have to be concrete. It is a little known fact that 14% of global CO2 comes from the processes used to create concrete and steel. As a major city experiencing a building boom, this is an area we can lead on. CLT is carbon neutral, and CLT buildings actually act as carbon banks, permanently sequestering carbon rather than emitting it. We should use more of it.

Second, on transportation, we need to expedite the expansion of grade separated alternatives to driving and renew the transportation benefit district (TBD). We need light rail now, not in 30 years. We need to make a generational commitment by fully funding ST3 and passing ST4 sooner rather than later. Potential future funding sources like progressive capital gains and income taxes need to be on the table, and as progressives we must fight for them.

Additionally, we need to renew the transportation benefit district which, over the past 6 years, has increased access to fast mass-transit from 25% to 66%. While the funding mechanism is a regressive mix of car tabs and sales tax, we cannot afford to lose the essential services the TBD provides. I will fight for a future with progressive income and capital gains taxes, but in the meantime we need to make due with the funding mechanisms we have.

Kshama Sawant

With 1.8 million people projected to move to the Puget Sound region by 2050 (https://www.psrc.org) what proposals do you have for reducing our emissions as our city and region grow dramatically in population?

Our society has the technology and resources to reduce emissions and become climate neutral. What is lacking is political will. There is no way to address climate change without coming into conflict with the massive corporations who profit off fossil fuels like Puget Sound Energy, who have proven to be the biggest barrier globally to addressing climate change, and who even refuse to pay a modicum of tax revenue.

We need affordable housing for all to reduce commute times, not to mention to urgently address the serious injustice of the housing and homelessness crisis. That will require a massive expansion of public social housing and a citywide, universal rent control policy free of corporate loopholes, because the for-profit market has clearly failed us.

We need a massive expansion of public transit, so it is free, accessible, and efficient. Rider fares already make up only a small minority of the funding for public transit in our region. Public transit also needs to be made fully electric.

We need to expand Seattle City Light’s green energy production. 100 years ago, the people of Seattle built the public utility that we depend on for carbon neutral electricity in Seattle today. We cannot become complacent, relaxing in the knowledge that Seattle’s electricity is not produced with fossil fuels, because much of the surrounding cities and counties in Washington get energy generated by Puget Sound Energy with natural gas burning power plants. Our public utility should be constantly expanding until there is no room for PSE’s dirty power.

A Green New Deal would create thousands of unionized living-wage union jobs for Seattle workers through a major expansion of clean energy, retrofitting in homes and residential and commercial buildings, and expansion of public transit, affordable housing and other public infrastructure. To do so, however, will require a movement powerful enough not only to win a tax on big business, but to overcome the power of the fossil fuel billionaires, a movement powerful enough to put people and the planet before profit. This is possible, as history shows, but will need movements to be independent of big business and the politicians that – regardless of lip service – serve the interests of big business. Our movements will need to elect our own candidates who will use their campaigns and positions to help build the collective strength to win the kind of radical policy that averting the impending climate catastrophe calls for.

Alex Pedersen

With 1.8 million people projected to move to the Puget Sound region by 2050 (https://www.psrc.org) what proposals do you have for reducing our emissions as our city and region grow dramatically in population?

For Mayor Durkan’s April 2018 update, CLICK HERE. For the original 90-page
“Climate Action Plan” from 2013, CLICK HERE.

While we hear folks talk about our city government addressing climate change, it’s
important first to consult these documents as a baseline to see what’s already
been in the works. But we can do more…

Lead the world in leveraging technology that analyzes emissions data, confirms the
best strategies, and tracks progress:

As a center of technology, Seattle can be a world leader by measuring which
efforts are effectively reducing emissions and which are not. With the best data
in the world on what works, we can hold our leaders and ourselves accountable,
scale up what works best, and share emission-reduction solutions with other
jurisdictions so that, together, we start ripple effects that reduce climate
change.

Encourage more use of solar:

Our city government owns the electric utility, Seattle City Light, and it should
encourage more people to use solar power. I support our Mayor’s efforts to
expand electrification infrastructure for clean, zero-emission buses and cars.

Protect and Expand our Tree Canopy:

We must protect and expand our tree canopy / urban forest by publishing reliable
data and preventing the removal of most trees prior to and during construction
projects. Politicians often say they will plant more trees, but we must also
recognize that large trees have the most positive impact in absorbing harmful
carbon emissions. Yet another reason to strive to remain “The Emerald City.”

Convert City Fleets to Green Faster:

The city government should convert its fleet of vehicles to zero emission or low
emission vehicles faster. City Hall should not expect residents and small
businesses to change their transportation behaviors radically and rapidly if
the city government and other large institutions are not leading by example.
(There are 4,000 city vehicles. But, as of April 2018, only 200 electric and
300 hybrid vehicles.)

Get more people to ride Sound Transit’s light rail:

We must solve the “first and last mile” to transit by launching
and measuring the success/failure of various, low-cost pilot projects to get
more people to the light rail stations. This should include vastly improving
several pedestrian paths to Husky Stadium station with better sidewalks,
crosswalks, lighting, and signage.

Support Supplemental Bus Service for Seattle Residents:

We should review, revise, and renew the special Seattle levy (approved by voters November
2014 as “Prop 1”) that funds supplemental bus service from King County Metro —
as long as Metro & SDOT do a better job engaging riders to
provide the bus service they actually want. For example, Metro should restore
commuter bus lines cut since 2015 and maintain key bus lines
such as the #70 that serves Eastlake & the U District. The $270 million
city bus program is up for renewal in 2020.

Require Large institutions, large employers, and large developments to contribute to
transit solutions, especially when asking the city government for
special treatment such as variances to zoning laws:

In exchange for benefits provided by the public, these institutions should
implement measures to transport their employees and/or residents in an
effective manner so as to not overly burden existing transportation systems.
For example, by providing shuttle services, building an extensive sidewalk
network, and encouraging carpooling or telecommuting.

Bringing the business community to the table and respecting their knowledge, costs, and
constraints, City Hall should explore incentives to expand the “Commute Trip
Reduction” program which is currently required by our state government for
sites with more than 100 employees.

(quoted excerpts from the Roosevelt neighborhood newsletter, The Roosie):
“According to the California Air Resources Board, 5 lbs of particulate matter
per leaf blower per hour are swept into the air and it takes hours to
settle.” “California’s statewide Environmental Protection Agency
estimates that an hour of leaf blower equals 1,000 miles driven in a 2015 Camry
car.” “An air quality report from L.A. states by 2020, ozone producing
emissions will be higher from lawn care equipment than from all cars in
L.A.” “Gas leaf blowers are identified as a source of harmful noise by
the U.S. CDC, U.S. EPA, and the national landscape industry.” To address this,
City Hall should explore a buy-back program to transition users away from
gas-powered leaf blowers to electricity-powered leaf blowers.

Enable the Port of Seattle to use more clean energy:

City Hall and Seattle City Light should help our Port of Seattle greatly reduce
emissions from planes, ships, and trucks, including the use of clean
electricity instead of traditional fuel while docking.

Facilitate a “Just Transition” to a cleaner, green economy for today’s workers: As we shift rapidly to a cleaner,
greener economy and create new clean energy jobs, we must ensure that today’s
workers and their families are protected and benefit from training and other
tools for a smooth transition.

Require a “Carbon Note” with each newly proposed ordinance and program:

(a concept borrowed from former D-4 candidate Cathy Tuttle): Similar to the Fiscal
Notes currently required to explain the funding impact of proposals, Carbon
Notes should be included with newly proposed City programs and laws so the
public and policymakers can consider the carbon impact. The challenge is
that quantifying the funding impact is easier than quantifying the carbon
impact without before and after measurements of carbon emissions. To avoid
conjecture or inaccurate claims that could minimize the crisis of climate
change, we should have climate scientists help to design the protocols city
government staff could use for meaningful Carbon Notes.

Recognize that climate change knows no boundaries and demand greater accountability and
action from regional organizations such as the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency:

Both the Seattle Mayor and King County
Executive serve on the board of the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency and they need
to update their Strategic Plan to address new climate resiliency threats such
as smoke from forest fires. Local leaders should
also support progress beyond our immediate geographic area if it can have a
strong impact. For a recent editorial about a new West Coast policy
requiring automakers to increase fuel efficiency, CLICK HERE. For a recent Op
Ed co-authored by Governor Jay Inslee on statewide efforts titled “State-led
climate goals — like Washington’s — will lead the way,” CLICK HERE.

Governments at all levels in the Northwest, including our Puget Sound region, need to
address systemic improvements to mitigate the harmful repercussions of climate
change, including impacts to water supply and air quality with a focus on our
most vulnerable communities (See the Climate Challenge Atlas complied by Futurewise
in 2017 which overlays a social justice Equity Index with the geographic areas
in Seattle most at risk of climate change impacts.)

Defeat Donald Trump! (“Dump Trump”):

President Trump’s policies have become the single worst thing for our environment.
Seattle is jam-packed with people passionate about reducing climate change. To
have the most impact, advocates should fan out to battleground, swing states in
2020 to help a Democrat become the next President. Democrats with the
boldest plans include our own Governor Jay Inslee whose “Climate Mission”
leverages scientific studies to prevent the worst impacts of climate change and
includes an “Evergreen Economy Plan” to create green jobs and
infrastructure needed to address the problems before it’s too late. While the
43rd’s environmental caucus members have done the real work of
raising the profile of the climate crisis locally, I was inspired and took the
small step of crafting a resolution unanimously approved by the 43rd District
Democrats to encourage a presidential debate dedicated solely to climate change.
For a copy, please CLICK HERE

Vote against Tim Eyman’s Initiative 976:

We should oppose Tim Eyman’s harmful proposal to reduce car tabs to
a flat fee (Initiative 976) because flat fees are regressive and the low amount
would dangerously gut Sound Transit. We want and need more people to ride light
rail to maximize the public’s investment, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
and to keep people moving throughout our region. No
on I-976.
(For more on the importance of light rail — especially in our District 4, please
see the section above about “Improving Transportation”.)

Affordable housing within cities is an important part of the solution to address climate
change. Within the city itself, planners should make sure density is focused
where there is frequent and reliable transit. Because the best transit is often
frequent bus service and the buses are owned/operated by King County instead of
by the City of Seattle, City Hall needs to be both cautious about where it
allows increased density and vigilant about getting transit service where and
when we need it the most. For example, the growing number of residents in and
near Magnuson Park / Sand Point need more frequent transit. I supported
the doubling of the Seattle Housing Levy and ideally those new low-income
housing projects are located near mass transit, such as the project to be built
above the Roosevelt Light Rail station (funded by Sound Transit 2).

Dan Strauss

With 1.8 million people projected to move to the Puget Sound region by 2050 (https://www.psrc.org) what proposals do you have for reducing our emissions as our city and region grow dramatically in population?

The two most important things we can do, which we must do concurrently, are increase density and expand public transit and non-automotive transit options. Dense, transit-rich cities are more environmentally friendly cities. We need to build duplexes and triplexes throughout the city, and we need a connected network of bus lanes and protected bike lanes citywide – we can’t wait 16 years for light rail. We also need to ensure that affordable homes are included in this new, more dense Seattle, so everyone has access to the opportunities and amenities that make Seattle a great place to live.

Andrew Lewis

With 1.8 million people projected to move to the Puget Sound region by 2050 (https://www.psrc.org) what proposals do you have for reducing our emissions as our city and region grow dramatically in population?

See the above above grade-separated light rail and a renewal of the TBD. Until we have a comprehensive grade-separated alternative to driving we will never truly tackle single occupancy vehicle trips.

Kshama Sawant

Creating an environmentally sustainable city will require that we do not create global warming pollution from our day to day activities. Some of the changes needed may not be immediately popular; how do you expect to address resistance to change in the way we live to address climate change?

Based on statistics, polls, and my own experiences talking with Seattle’s working people, I have no doubt that the vast majority are clear about the dangers of climate disaster and do not need to be convinced that society needs to change course. For instance, ridership on public transportation has gone up in ways that reveal ordinary working people taking on the commitment to reduce their personal carbon footprint. But in order to dramatically increase public transit usage and meet our climate targets, we need to make much more far reaching policy changes – we need to make bus and light rail service free and carry out a major expansion of routes and frequency to make mass transit a convenient and reliable alternative to car-based transit. We need to pay for this by taxing big business and the super rich.

One of the most effective tools the fossil fuel industry uses to block environmental reforms is to carry out a process of “divide and rule” with arguments that a Green New Deal is bad for workers, even though working people, especially people of color, bear the brunt of the pollution, climate change and global warming. While we should support people making changes to live more sustainably, it’s crucial we demand the fossil fuel corporations that profit most off the climate crisis pay for solutions, not working people.

For example, while I strongly agree with discouraging car use, I do not support Mayor Durkan’s “congestion pricing” (tolls on city streets) proposal. Tolls are regressive taxation. A 2009 UW study showed other working class or low income commuters who had no alternative route spent up to 15% of their limited incomes on tolls. The study concluded: “As a percentage of income, the poor pay much more.” My Office has also heard from construction workers who have informed us that they often don’t have a choice but to drive, as they carry their tools with them, and have to be mobile between job sites. The best and most equitable way of reducing car usage to the bare minimum is for us to win a massive expansion in public transit, and making it free, such that working people are able to get through their day, go to work, drop off and pick up their children, get groceries, all on the basis of public transit. For this, we will need to tax big business.

In the context of capitalism, where food production and other aspects are completely controlled by corporations, working people have little choice in how our food and consumer goods are produced and transported. We are not given a democratic choice in where housing is built and what it will cost, or how our power is generated. Big business and the for-profit market make the big decisions that overwhelmingly impact the environmental impacts of our day-to-day activities. That’s why we need to fight to build movements that can win a Green New Deal and far reaching change to avoid climate catastrophe. As a socialist, I believe that regular working people should have a democratic say in the infrastructure and resources of our society.

Alex Pedersen

Creating an environmentally sustainable city will require that we do not create global warming pollution from our day to day activities. Some of the changes needed may not be immediately popular; how do you expect to address resistance to change in the way we live to address climate change?

For fairness and equity, I believe local governments must first get their
environmental houses in order:

First,
our city and county governments need to lead by example. For example:

Convert City Fleets to Green Faster:

The city government should convert its fleet of vehicles to zero
emission or low emission vehicles faster. City Hall should not expect residents
and small businesses to change their transportation behaviors radically and
rapidly if the city government and other large institutions are not leading by
example. (There are 4,000 city vehicles. But, as of April 2018, only 200
electric and 300 hybrid vehicles.)

In addition to carbon reduction, our local governments will also
have their hands full investing in climate resiliency.

2. We also
need larger institutions and corporations to be more environmentally friendly. For
example:

Enable the Port of Seattle to use more clean energy:

City Hall and Seattle City Light should help our Port of Seattle greatly
reduce emissions from planes, ships, and trucks, including the use of clean
electricity instead of traditional fuel while docking.

Expand the city’s “Commute Trip Reduction” program with large employers:
Bringing the business community to the table and respecting their knowledge, costs, and
constraints, City Hall should explore incentives to expand the “Commute Trip
Reduction” program which is currently required by our state government for
sites with more than 100 employees.

3. We need new construction projects to have environmentally friendly materials and
systems in place so that, going forward, we are creating only environmentally
sustainable structures.

4. By starting with local government, large institutions, and the private market, we
will have more credibility when asking for individual households to do much
more. I believe we should focus on positive incentives for individual
households instead of elected officials shaming our own residents or making
their lives more difficult. For example, staying positive would include:

Getting more people to ride Sound Transit’s light rail:

We must solve the “first and last mile” to transit by launching
and measuring the success/failure of various, low-cost pilot projects to get
more people to the light rail stations. This should include vastly improving
several pedestrian paths to Husky Stadium station with better sidewalks,
crosswalks, lighting, and signage.

Supporting Supplemental Bus Service for Seattle Residents:

We should review, revise, and renew the special Seattle levy(approved by voters November
2014 as “Prop 1”) that funds supplemental bus service from King County Metro —
as long as Metro & SDOT do a better job engaging riders to
provide the bus service they actually want. For example, Metro should restore
commuter bus lines cut since 2015 and maintain key bus lines
such as the #70 that serves Eastlake & the U District. The $270 million
city bus program is up for renewal in 2020.

Dan Strauss

Creating an environmentally sustainable city will require that we do not create global warming pollution from our day to day activities. Some of the changes needed may not be immediately popular; how do you expect to address resistance to change in the way we live to address climate change?

Making sure that constituents feel heard is paramount. I have dedicated my life to public service, and have spent much of the last decade in constituent service- facing positions in particular. I know how to listen, I know how to connect with my community, and I will meet people where they are. One of my first priorities once elected is to open a district office, so my constituents don’t have to come downtown to be heard. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, and I am willing and eager to sit down with anyone, regardless of their position, for a discussion. It is important to sit face to face with people and disagree while still being able to find common ground in values or another topic. This is how I plan to address resistance: in-person.

Andrew Lewis

Creating an environmentally sustainable city will require that we do not create global warming pollution from our day to day activities. Some of the changes needed may not be immediately popular; how do you expect to address resistance to change in the way we live to address climate change?

First, we need to convey the urgency. We are truly organizing and passing policy to save the very existence of human civilization. The stakes could not be higher. Second, a lot of these policies, like building out light rail, are popular. By making progress on policy planks that are popular, we can build momentum and educate the public on future policies that in time we can build a consensus on.